CAT/C/46/D/319/2007 The State party refers to the Committee's General Comment No.1, which states that it is the complainant’s responsibility to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his or her communication. 4.3 The State party maintains that the communication is based on the same facts and evidence as presented to the competent and impartial domestic tribunals and decision makers and emphasizes that it is not the role of the Committee to weigh evidence or reassess findings of fact and credibility made by competent domestic decision-makers. The State party submits that the complainant’s refugee claim was heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board, which is an independent, quasi-judicial, specialized tribunal that hears refugee applications. The Board determined whether the person is a refugee based on an oral hearing and consideration of documentary evidence. The Board members are specialists in refugee law, who receive comprehensive, ongoing training and develop expertise on the human rights conditions in countries of alleged persecution. The State party submits that the Board’s decision was subject to judicial review by the Federal Court. 4.4 The State party also submits that the complainant’s case was reviewed under the PRRA programme, which is founded in Canada’s domestic and international commitments to the principle of non-refoulement. Under this procedure an applicant whose claim to refugee protection has been rejected by the Board may present for consideration only new evidence that arose after the rejection or was not reasonably available, or that the applicant could not reasonably have been expected to have presented, at the time of the rejection. PRRA applications are considered by officers specially trained to assess risk and to consider the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as Canada’s international obligations, including those under the Convention against Torture. The State party also makes reference to the complainant’s unsuccessful H&C application. The State party makes reference to previous decisions of the Committee and other United Nation treaty bodies, which have considered the judicial review1 and PRRA process2 to be effective remedies. 4.5 The State party refers to the Committee’s constant view that it can not review credibility findings unless it can be demonstrated that such findings are arbitrary or unreasonable; that the complainant has made no such allegations nor does the submitted material support a finding that the Board’s decision suffered from such defects. 4.6 The State party refers to the complainant’s claims that the Canadian refugee determination and post-determination process were insufficient and did not meet international human rights standards. The State party submits that these allegations fail to describe in sufficient detail how the above procedure violates article 3 or any other provision of the Convention or fail to provide for an effective remedy. It also notes that it is not within the scope of review of the Committee to consider the Canadian system in general, but only to examine whether, in the present case, the State party complied with its obligations under the Convention. The State Party maintains that the allegation of lack of effective remedy should be found inadmissible since it constitutes an allegation for violation of article 2 (3) of ICCPR and therefore it is not within the Committee’s jurisdiction under article 22, paragraph 1 of the Convention. 1 P.S.S v. Canada, Communication 66/1997, para 6.2, R.K. v. Canada, Communication 42/1996 para 7.2, L. O. v. Canada, Communication 95/1997, para 6.5, M.A. v. Canada, Communication 22/1995, paras 3-4, Adu v. Canada, Communication 603/1994, para 6.2, Nartey v. Canada, Communication 604/1994, para 6.2. 2 The State party refers to T.A. v. Canada, Communication 273/2005, para 6.4, Nartey v. Canada, Communication 604/1994, para 6.2, Badu v. Canada, Communication 603/1994, para 6.2, Khan v. Canada, Communication 1302/2004, para 5.5. 6